Utter rubbish. Best value is most features/highest quality at lowest relative price. Some very expensive things are excellent value, IF you can afford them. You fail to understand the word value. IE, (cheap != good value) = true... Perhaps English isn't your first language?

The most important reason that Bosch upgraded the LSU 4.2 to LSU 4.9 is that LSU4.2 has a potential quality problem: susceptible to contaminations of reference air cell, which is called CSD (characteristic shift down). Once the reference air cell is contaminated, the sensor signal is no way accurate any more, because you just lost the reference. This is almost certain to happen after some time, and had been the biggest complain from OEMs to Bosch, New LSU 4.9 replaced the reference air with the reference pump current, completely get rid of this problem.

This is the fundamental reason why LSU 4.2 requires frequent free air calibrations and LSU 4.9 does not need that.

It’s also funny to see people using the free air to calibrate LSU 4.2 sensor, where free air is the least accurate area for LSU 4.2. We all know LSU4.2 is poor to measure lean situations. LSU 4.2 is only good around lambda =1. It’s like you are calibrating the most accurate range by using the least one.

About CSD, I am ignorant of that. From my own usage and understanding the primary cause of failure in the 4.2 is that the diffusion chamber gets clogged with carbon, this causes a general slow down in the response of the sensor, it also has a minor impact on accuracy. The clogging of the diffusion chamber will effect the 4.9 as much as the 4.2

About free air calibration, the background to that is that innovate made it popular it is not a standard thing to do, innovate does not use the calibration resistor so they use free air as a reference point to generate it's own pump current (they do not call it pump current but it is linear with pump current so in the end it is pump current) vs O2 curve. The 4.2 loses alot of speed due to aging and very little accuracy, so free air calibration really does no good as it can not compensate for response time. Other controllers use free air calibration so to save 50 cents on a high accuracy 62 ohm measuring resistor, they save another 50 cents by not having an addition wire to connect to the calibration resistor and also to be a me too product.

Also it is not that the 4.2 requires frequent free air calibration, it is the innovate design that requires frequent free air calibration. My opinion on this matter is that innovate requires calibration very often because not only do they need to calibrate the pump cell to free air, they also have to calibrate the pump resistance WRT to the nermest resistance because they do not measure nermest resistance directly but instead measure pump resistance as a proxy for nermest resistance.

I do not know where you get the idea that the 4.2 is only accurate at 1 lambda.

Fixed. May the most reputable seller with the best service and best value product win.

Fred.

Best value consists of compromises as they must be feature packed at low cost and to do the features properly, it won't be in the best value zone anymore.

In order to create the best value, you need to do your homework and develop a lambda controller from scratch. You are just relying on the bosch IC to do the critical work of controlling the sensor, then adding on a microcontroller to communicate via SPI with the Bosch chip. That type of solution while easy to implement gives you absolutely no advantage to other solutions that also use the Bosch chip, so you tell me how you can claim some bombastic response time using a Bosch IC that is known to be slow.

In the end, you solution is a lazy solution, a low tech solution, you burden yourself with the added expense of the Bosch IC and the 4.9 without knowing the actual pros and cons.

You Attack the innovate system based on response time, which is absolutely the dumbest thing to do. The innovate design has all types of weaknesses, but response time is not one of them. You should count your blessings that you are not getting your ass sued off by innovate for claiming something so stupid.

The only pro the 4.9 has over the 4.2 is that the nermest cell resistance is 300ohms @ 750C, the 4.2 is 80hms @ 750C. This means you can more precisely control the temperature of the sensor.

Both have the same lambda range and the same accuracy.

The 4.2 has larger holes for gas to enter, so it is a little bit faster responding.

I build units to work with the 4.2 and not the 4.9 primarily because in north America you can get the 4.2 for half the price of the 4.9. the other reason is that I have thousands of 4.2 connectors and pins already purchased. I have modified my units to work with the 4.9 in case 4.2 supply ever dries up or gets more expensive than the 4.9, all you need to do is change the ip vs 02 curve in firmware, change your target nermest resistance, and an overall reduction in the P I D constants controlling the heater power output based on the nermest resistance because the nermest resistance in the 4.9 is much higher.

Not to mention the heater frequency 2Hz vs 100Hz. I guess you could throw any Hz you'd like, but one with higher rating in the datasheet, would be more nimble to 'take orders' hence being more accurate to control and more accurate in measurement. This is why LSU 4.2 has bigger holes?

If they do have the same range, why does the other perform better throughout the range?

"thousands of 4.2 connectors and pins already purchased": So this is the real reason sticking to older tech? Well, head start for ALM.

About Innovate LC-1's fastness everyone is yelling about. It isn't being stated anywhere else than in their propaganda (marketing material). No measurement data, no further specs just hype. Same as PLX's 'Critical Response Technology'. Cool term, no data.

I was being honest in my post about my position with the 4.2, it doe snot mean that I will talk fud about the 4.2. I do have thousand of 4.2 connectors and pins, but technical merit is the most important thing, if in my mind that 4.9 is a better sensor, I will use the 4.9 tommorow and dump my 4.2 connectors into the river.

About the heater frequency, I never bothered to look at that spec because it is immaterial. The heater is just a big resistor, you can drive it at any frequency provided that it does not cause noise on your ADC pins. Bosch selects those frequencies because it is what it's ICs use, not because of some intrinsic property of the sensor.

In order to create the best value, you need to do your homework and develop a lambda controller from scratch.

This is called re-invent the wheel.

toalan wrote:

You are just relying on the bosch IC to do the critical work of controlling the sensor, then adding on a microcontroller to communicate via SPI with the Bosch chip. That type of solution while easy to implement gives you absolutely no advantage to other solutions that also use the Bosch chip, so you tell me how you can claim some bombastic response time using a Bosch IC that is known to be slow.

Many may use CJ125 to control LSU sensors, but not every one can do it well. It is same that you can do a good job or a poor job with the same computer.CJ125 is the circuit, but you must write good software to run the best out of it.

We are not "claiming" the response time. We have data. Show yours.

toalan wrote:

In the end, you solution is a lazy solution, a low tech solution, you burden yourself with the added expense of the Bosch IC and the 4.9 without knowing the actual pros and cons.

Calling Bosch CJ125 a low tech solution requires gut. That is one chip designed by some of the best Bosch engineers. Again you claim you can do better than Bosch to control their sensors.

For this reason , almost all wide-bands are really only useful for measuring steady-state AFR. i.e. constant speed / constant load.

This is so important to a wideband controller, that I want to say some more:The only way to determine whether a wideband controller is good or bad is to see whether it can be used as a feedback device.

More professional tuners use the linearized analog output from the wideband controller as the feedback signal to the ECU, to control the AFR instantly. Without a good response time and accuracy at dynamic conditions, a wideband controller has no way to be competent for this job.

As a metering device, accuracy and response time are 2 most important characteristics. Without these two, no matter how pretty is the housing and how fancy is the display, it can not be taken as a good wideband controller any more. What kind of "best value" can you get out it?

For engine controls, stead-state AFR is too easy to control. It is the transient fuel control that is the most challenging. Without fast and accurate responses, it is not possible to use that wideband to tune the transient fuel.

I wonder for most users without a dyno, how do they maintain a "constant speed / constant load".

More professional tuners use the linearized analog output from the wideband controller as the feedback signal to the ECU, to control the AFR instantly.

Not possible. You clearly have no idea about engine control or even control loops in general. With the calibre of people on this forum, I don't think I need to say much more than that on this matter.

ecotrons wrote:

I wonder for most users without a dyno, how do they maintain a "constant speed / constant load".

Have you ever road tuned a car? Hell, have you ever driven a car? You're making a fool of yourself. Send me one of your units and when I get a chance I'll side by side it with Alan's stuff. I bet you don't have the balls.

Utter rubbish. Best value is most features/highest quality at lowest relative price. Some very expensive things are excellent value, IF you can afford them. You fail to understand the word value. IE, (cheap != good value) = true... Perhaps English isn't your first language?

You're right it isn't, my native language is Finnish. Here is my point of view as a customer: If you check some, for example, a laptop test. There are winners, the best value/cost effective and the rest. The winner is a winner, with obvious reasons. Offers a good package, useability, good display with excellent view angle etc. The 'best value / cost-effective doesn't have every, if even any of those aspects right, some might be at medium level, some close to the winners but it just doesn't reach the top. It's a puzzle of compromises. That's how I see 'best value'. It's a matter of opinion.

toalan wrote:

You Attack the innovate system based on response time, which is absolutely the dumbest thing to do. The innovate design has all types of weaknesses, but response time is not one of them. You should count your blessings that you are not getting your ass sued off by innovate for claiming something so stupid.

Sue me for what? Because of questioning their product because of no proper data and a ford muscle magazine that was made w/out even the slighthest bit of objectivity. They even admit it.So meantime from now and to a certain point when they show some actual data, I'll be questioning their stuff. I guess I'll be doing it for ever. The same goes for the rest of wbo2 manufacturers too...

That is basically my testing jig, for dynamic response calibration gas is passes through the solenoid at high pressure, the solenoid value shuts and opens at around 10ms. I put the jig together because the results are repeatable unlike having a bunch of O2 sensors on an exhaust.

I have results, I do not publish them, because quite frankly I need to build a better jig and get more gases for the results to have any merit. My jig also has to be checked over by an impartial 3rd party and the tests need to be done by an impartial 3rd party. I do not know how you can just ghetto weld a bunch of bungs on an exhaust, take some selective screen shot with your scope, and be bold enough to make the claims you do.

My turn!Have you ever road tuned a car? Hell, have you ever driven a car? You're making a fool of yourself. Send me one of your units and when I get a chance I'll side by side it with Alan's stuff. I bet you don't have the balls.

Fred.

You need a fairly heavy class big brake kit to give some 600hp car steady state treatment at WOT at the upper rpm register With the 'balls' comment, I'd say there could be alan glasses on when reading the test data

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum